I don't mind fixing it at all, but I do believe it should be fixed. I spent a LONG time trying to figure out why my dependencies were showing up as "provided" when I clearly set them up in my pom as the default scope (compile).
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: > I'm totally in favor of anyone who knows more about Maven than me to fix it. > I didn't know about the transitive dependency issue. > > Here are two things that I would add, though: > - other than wicket itself, I don't think the parent should add any required > dependencies - many subprojects may not need them > > - you should only make the change if you're willing to fix anything that you > break. That's part of the deal. Running a mvn clean install and a mvn > site:deploy (it's not deploy, but I can't remember - anyway the site > generation is working and should be tested) > > Jeremy Thomerson > http://www.wickettraining.com > -- sent from a wireless device > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Carman <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:17 AM > To: users@wicket.apache.org > Subject: Re: Wicketstuff Core Dependency Management... > > Wicket itself doesn't declare the dependencies this way. So, why > should wicketstuff-core? > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM, James Carman > <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >> But, I shouldn't *have* to do that, Brill. That's the whole point. >> Breaking transitive dependency resolution is a bad thing in the maven >> world. We're handing dependencies the wrong way if we're breaking >> stuff. >> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca> wrote: >>> Actually that might mess up the rest of us :) >>> >>> If you need those lobs to be includes, simply add them to you pom and change >>> their scope so they are included... The build should then override the >>> provided scope in the parent. >>> >>> - Brill Pappin >>> Sent from my mobile. >>> >>> >>> On 21-Mar-09, at 9:01 AM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The dependencies in the main wicketstuff-core are "scoped" for stuff >>>> like slf4j and jetty to be "provided". This totally screwed me up >>>> when I was trying to write an example application (the log4j stuff >>>> wasn't showing up because it was marked as provided by the parent >>>> pom). Does anyone care if I remove the scope declarations from the >>>> <dependencyManagement> section in the wicketstuff-core parent pom? It >>>> fixed my problem when I did. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >>> >>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
